Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The Meaning of All Men Are Created Equal

    Oct 12, 2019, 11:23 AM ”…Created equal …” is an incomplete sentence. In P this would have to be a complete sentence. “…. are created by nature, equal before the laws of nature and the natural law of reciprocity.” It’s just poetic. And they use property or tort rather than reciprocity. ” … associated …” doesn’t mean anything. I can gossip and spread a rumor about you, and cause people to associate you with something negative. “… aristocracy..” meant and means rule by the best, in other words, meritocracy, demonstrated by military defense, achievement of wealth, and contribution to the political government of the polity. Truth will bring meritocracy. If we produce families producing consistent meritocracy over generations we will produce nobility. If we produce a government by people from that nobility, we will produce an aristocracy. If that hierarchy of merit is defended by rule of law by sovereignty and reciprocity, by universal standing in matters of the commons, then it is very hard for aristocracy to survive without in fact surviving on meritocracy. Same goes for entrepreneurs today. The problem was removing the requirement that one demonstrate meritocracy in order to participate in government., We call this error the universal franchise. But that was a mistake. Furthermore, instead of the aristocracy producing policy and the government acting as a jury, and the bureaucracy enforcing it, we gave the decision to the government and removed the veto of the aristocracy. That’s the problem. Demonstrated excellence is the only test of merit.

  • The Meaning of All Men Are Created Equal

    Oct 12, 2019, 11:23 AM ”…Created equal …” is an incomplete sentence. In P this would have to be a complete sentence. “…. are created by nature, equal before the laws of nature and the natural law of reciprocity.” It’s just poetic. And they use property or tort rather than reciprocity. ” … associated …” doesn’t mean anything. I can gossip and spread a rumor about you, and cause people to associate you with something negative. “… aristocracy..” meant and means rule by the best, in other words, meritocracy, demonstrated by military defense, achievement of wealth, and contribution to the political government of the polity. Truth will bring meritocracy. If we produce families producing consistent meritocracy over generations we will produce nobility. If we produce a government by people from that nobility, we will produce an aristocracy. If that hierarchy of merit is defended by rule of law by sovereignty and reciprocity, by universal standing in matters of the commons, then it is very hard for aristocracy to survive without in fact surviving on meritocracy. Same goes for entrepreneurs today. The problem was removing the requirement that one demonstrate meritocracy in order to participate in government., We call this error the universal franchise. But that was a mistake. Furthermore, instead of the aristocracy producing policy and the government acting as a jury, and the bureaucracy enforcing it, we gave the decision to the government and removed the veto of the aristocracy. That’s the problem. Demonstrated excellence is the only test of merit.

  • Some Form of Lying Is Almost Always Cowardice

    Oct 12, 2019, 11:25 AM

    “The reason people are engaging in some form of lying is almost always cowardice.”- Curt Doolittle

    • Everyone who has one of their cherished ideas challenged, especially if they’ve invested a lot in it, feels fear of being wrong (pride hurt, having to admit weakness & not “knowing it all”). After a while it gets easier, but those of us who have said “I was wrong” or “wow I was so clueless about this before” dozens or hundreds of times, and have spent our entire adult lives voraciously reading searching for greater understanding, sometimes forget how hard it is for normal people to admit they were wrong or open up to info that challenges an idea they hold.

    • Leftists are scared s***less of the consequences of “everyone is not equal in ability” (facing the brutality of life without a salve of lies to give false hope of a future utopia)

    • Ancaps/libertarians are often heavily invested in their ideas of course, and can often be afraid of the idea that “if you don’t contribute to the commons you will not stop parasites and in fact you are a parasite upon the commons in which others invest”. (We are pointing out that they have a responsibility they didn’t think they had.)

    • Some/many civnats (not all – some learn very fast) are scared of the personal cost they could face in our current society for talking about inherent group racial differences (group patterns)

    • Some/many Christians (not all) are scared of criticism of, or losing, something they value – a belief system that provides a salve against the brutality of reality via a future hope that “everything will be made right one day”, an alternate status hierarchy (“if I pray and do good God will reward me someday and I will be higher status than people who have a lot of money or power”), and a genuine group or team where they feel safe and accepted without having to do much other than express belief in the supernatural and not be a bother (the requirement to submit to dogma rather than operate by falsification is not healthy, but “a place to belong” where you trust those around you is a great thing). Especially because they often view “being a Christian” as their primary identity, they often have a strong negative reaction to any criticism of Christianity.

    These people are just “being human”. But we’re not gonna lie just to make them feel better. The left is our enemy, plain & simple. Ancaps/lolberts are learning fast as enemies flow through our open borders & as it becomes more and more obvious that there is a critical mass of humanity that cannot be persuaded/taught not to be parasites but must be stopped by force, which requires commons. The civnats are learning as the pain of losing & fear of the left’s craziness (which will escalate & escalate til at latest after TX goes blue) overpowers their fear of being too politically incorrect. The Christians as a group have no solution, no constitution, no insight to take the Right from losing to winning, the vast majority of their leaders/pastors/priests do not speak the truth on race & may never do so, but there is a brand of Christian political leader (James Fox Higgins, Daryl Kane) starting to fill the market for non-cucked Christian political speakers/leaders. (The Christian people themselves are faster and more willing to escape cuckiness than their leaders, just as with the Right as a whole.) As I often say, the grassroots Right is virtually 100% united on what we want TO STOP (via-negativa). The civnats just don’t realize it takes race realism to do it, and the right-wing Christians just have a hard time when the tendency of Christianity to be used as a tool of cuckiness both in history and now is pointed out. But both these groups in practicality want to STOP the same dysgenic/leftist/parasitic behaviours/outcomes that the rest of the grassroots Right wants to stop. Thus, we CAN agree on a constitution that primarily is about what our enemies CANNOT/MUST NOT do.

  • Some Form of Lying Is Almost Always Cowardice

    Oct 12, 2019, 11:25 AM

    “The reason people are engaging in some form of lying is almost always cowardice.”- Curt Doolittle

    • Everyone who has one of their cherished ideas challenged, especially if they’ve invested a lot in it, feels fear of being wrong (pride hurt, having to admit weakness & not “knowing it all”). After a while it gets easier, but those of us who have said “I was wrong” or “wow I was so clueless about this before” dozens or hundreds of times, and have spent our entire adult lives voraciously reading searching for greater understanding, sometimes forget how hard it is for normal people to admit they were wrong or open up to info that challenges an idea they hold.

    • Leftists are scared s***less of the consequences of “everyone is not equal in ability” (facing the brutality of life without a salve of lies to give false hope of a future utopia)

    • Ancaps/libertarians are often heavily invested in their ideas of course, and can often be afraid of the idea that “if you don’t contribute to the commons you will not stop parasites and in fact you are a parasite upon the commons in which others invest”. (We are pointing out that they have a responsibility they didn’t think they had.)

    • Some/many civnats (not all – some learn very fast) are scared of the personal cost they could face in our current society for talking about inherent group racial differences (group patterns)

    • Some/many Christians (not all) are scared of criticism of, or losing, something they value – a belief system that provides a salve against the brutality of reality via a future hope that “everything will be made right one day”, an alternate status hierarchy (“if I pray and do good God will reward me someday and I will be higher status than people who have a lot of money or power”), and a genuine group or team where they feel safe and accepted without having to do much other than express belief in the supernatural and not be a bother (the requirement to submit to dogma rather than operate by falsification is not healthy, but “a place to belong” where you trust those around you is a great thing). Especially because they often view “being a Christian” as their primary identity, they often have a strong negative reaction to any criticism of Christianity.

    These people are just “being human”. But we’re not gonna lie just to make them feel better. The left is our enemy, plain & simple. Ancaps/lolberts are learning fast as enemies flow through our open borders & as it becomes more and more obvious that there is a critical mass of humanity that cannot be persuaded/taught not to be parasites but must be stopped by force, which requires commons. The civnats are learning as the pain of losing & fear of the left’s craziness (which will escalate & escalate til at latest after TX goes blue) overpowers their fear of being too politically incorrect. The Christians as a group have no solution, no constitution, no insight to take the Right from losing to winning, the vast majority of their leaders/pastors/priests do not speak the truth on race & may never do so, but there is a brand of Christian political leader (James Fox Higgins, Daryl Kane) starting to fill the market for non-cucked Christian political speakers/leaders. (The Christian people themselves are faster and more willing to escape cuckiness than their leaders, just as with the Right as a whole.) As I often say, the grassroots Right is virtually 100% united on what we want TO STOP (via-negativa). The civnats just don’t realize it takes race realism to do it, and the right-wing Christians just have a hard time when the tendency of Christianity to be used as a tool of cuckiness both in history and now is pointed out. But both these groups in practicality want to STOP the same dysgenic/leftist/parasitic behaviours/outcomes that the rest of the grassroots Right wants to stop. Thus, we CAN agree on a constitution that primarily is about what our enemies CANNOT/MUST NOT do.

  • The Declaration of Independence, Equality Clause

    Oct 12, 2019, 1:42 PM A look into the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson By JWarren Prescott The declaration of independence’ equality clause refers to the equality of self-evident, unalienable (natural) rights among people – it does not mean anything beyond that. Natural rights of namely, Life, Liberty and Property. (and those rights derived from these such as self-preservation and defense) It does not mean that men and women should earn the same amount for the same work. It does not mean that we should initiate social reforms to assure affirmative action or racial quotas. And, it certainly does not mean that everyone is gonna get (or entitled to) the same opportunities as your neighbor. These are not rights, but they are coercion for resources. Jefferson was was very precise with his language and wrote the Declaration of Independence to make the case to england about the philosophical justification for secession and independence. he anticipated the counter argument from the royalist perspective, i.e. the divine right of kings. This is why he when to the philosophical basis of rights and that is natural law – in this natural state, there is no distinction of race, class or status. John Locke and Hobbes were influential in Jefferson’s thoughts on this. I would also say that Jefferson was shaking with fear as he was writing to the King. England was just about the strongest nation in the world and here is Jefferson assigned the duty to word a document in just the right way to make a logical and reasonable case and not be hung at the post…. Class, race or sex was the furthest thing from his mind.

  • The Declaration of Independence, Equality Clause

    Oct 12, 2019, 1:42 PM A look into the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson By JWarren Prescott The declaration of independence’ equality clause refers to the equality of self-evident, unalienable (natural) rights among people – it does not mean anything beyond that. Natural rights of namely, Life, Liberty and Property. (and those rights derived from these such as self-preservation and defense) It does not mean that men and women should earn the same amount for the same work. It does not mean that we should initiate social reforms to assure affirmative action or racial quotas. And, it certainly does not mean that everyone is gonna get (or entitled to) the same opportunities as your neighbor. These are not rights, but they are coercion for resources. Jefferson was was very precise with his language and wrote the Declaration of Independence to make the case to england about the philosophical justification for secession and independence. he anticipated the counter argument from the royalist perspective, i.e. the divine right of kings. This is why he when to the philosophical basis of rights and that is natural law – in this natural state, there is no distinction of race, class or status. John Locke and Hobbes were influential in Jefferson’s thoughts on this. I would also say that Jefferson was shaking with fear as he was writing to the King. England was just about the strongest nation in the world and here is Jefferson assigned the duty to word a document in just the right way to make a logical and reasonable case and not be hung at the post…. Class, race or sex was the furthest thing from his mind.

  • Q: “… Unions?”

    Oct 12, 2019, 5:20 PM The original purpose of unions was to protect the underclasses. The communists worked thru the labor unions. They used unions to drive class warfare. Unions were the largest contributors to the democratic party. Unions drove the democratic party into socialism and communism under marxism like identity politics under postmodernism. The remaining purpose of unions is to attempt to provide labor with above-middle class earnings not sustainable in the world economy. Unions are what drove business offshore (I was involved in that discussion back then). Trump is trying to drive business back on shore. Taxes WERE the the primary reason preventing re-shoring. Trump fixed that. Now unions are the primary reason preventing re-shoring manufacturing. The market and political problem with unions is collective bargaining law, not unions themselves (safety, work distribution). The primary problem with unions today is pensions which cannot ever be paid (and won’t be), not wages. Mandatory fees are the primary complaint by people opposed to the left. Unions are not resisting immigration, which is what is keeping wage down. Unions were advantageous during the brief postwar period where it allowed labor to capture a grater share of windfall profits – that no longer exist. Unions were necessary at least in the private sector to cause legal change in health, safety, and work load, but it was insurance companies and liability law that provided that change not unions. It is not clear what value they serve today in the private sector other than to limit competition for labor and raise wages and possibly lengthen careers preventing constant turnover by age discrimination. The general argument has been for years that any valuable function provided by unions (pensions) must eventually be provided by the state or it will disappear. The only reason collective bargaining still exists is that it’s politically impossible to get it past the government union competition, not the private sector. So unions are responsible for the overpayment of government costs, salaries, benefits, and pensions despite the unproductively of government, and preventing customer service, and preventing and rotation of government workers not providing government service. There is a reason the region around Washington is wealthy.

  • Q: “… Unions?”

    Oct 12, 2019, 5:20 PM The original purpose of unions was to protect the underclasses. The communists worked thru the labor unions. They used unions to drive class warfare. Unions were the largest contributors to the democratic party. Unions drove the democratic party into socialism and communism under marxism like identity politics under postmodernism. The remaining purpose of unions is to attempt to provide labor with above-middle class earnings not sustainable in the world economy. Unions are what drove business offshore (I was involved in that discussion back then). Trump is trying to drive business back on shore. Taxes WERE the the primary reason preventing re-shoring. Trump fixed that. Now unions are the primary reason preventing re-shoring manufacturing. The market and political problem with unions is collective bargaining law, not unions themselves (safety, work distribution). The primary problem with unions today is pensions which cannot ever be paid (and won’t be), not wages. Mandatory fees are the primary complaint by people opposed to the left. Unions are not resisting immigration, which is what is keeping wage down. Unions were advantageous during the brief postwar period where it allowed labor to capture a grater share of windfall profits – that no longer exist. Unions were necessary at least in the private sector to cause legal change in health, safety, and work load, but it was insurance companies and liability law that provided that change not unions. It is not clear what value they serve today in the private sector other than to limit competition for labor and raise wages and possibly lengthen careers preventing constant turnover by age discrimination. The general argument has been for years that any valuable function provided by unions (pensions) must eventually be provided by the state or it will disappear. The only reason collective bargaining still exists is that it’s politically impossible to get it past the government union competition, not the private sector. So unions are responsible for the overpayment of government costs, salaries, benefits, and pensions despite the unproductively of government, and preventing customer service, and preventing and rotation of government workers not providing government service. There is a reason the region around Washington is wealthy.

  • The Inquisition, the Church, in Context.

    Oct 12, 2019, 7:46 PM The purpose of the inquisition was: … 1) to suppress factions (heresy) that would have weakened the church’s income (they were crooks), their political power, and the church’s ambition to take over as the central government of Europe … 2) to standardize punishment given the wide variety of punishments coming out of various localities. … 3) identify and prosecute muslims and jews that had pretended to convert but not, … 4) and finally it evolved serve as a bludgeon to prosecute enemies during the reformation – and we see this in the witch trials which were the end process of that process combined with pre-christian heathen rituals. We should note that the reason the french government was so bloodily overthrown was the same reason for the protestant reformation, which was the same reason for the Cathar / Albigensian crusade arose. The corruption because of the church’s attempt to imitate Byzantium, and Byzantium’s attempt to imitate the empires of the pre-muslim world: rule of ignorant illiterate people by superstition, instead of the western model of patriarchal, continuous domestication of man from slave, to freeman, to citizen, to senate. The church was at a level of corruption similar to that of late french monarchy, and what we see in present Washington. There is little difference today between Washington DC, Versailles, The church in France, and the church in Italy (where it did succeed in rule somewhat). My read of the inquisition is a protestant propaganda campaign, and a more modern atheist campaign. In effect the church tried for many centuries to rule Europe as it did Byzantium and it failed. It failed and the many sovereign states succeeded. Because a monopoly calcifies and feeds corruption and a market competes and defeats corruption.

  • The Inquisition, the Church, in Context.

    Oct 12, 2019, 7:46 PM The purpose of the inquisition was: … 1) to suppress factions (heresy) that would have weakened the church’s income (they were crooks), their political power, and the church’s ambition to take over as the central government of Europe … 2) to standardize punishment given the wide variety of punishments coming out of various localities. … 3) identify and prosecute muslims and jews that had pretended to convert but not, … 4) and finally it evolved serve as a bludgeon to prosecute enemies during the reformation – and we see this in the witch trials which were the end process of that process combined with pre-christian heathen rituals. We should note that the reason the french government was so bloodily overthrown was the same reason for the protestant reformation, which was the same reason for the Cathar / Albigensian crusade arose. The corruption because of the church’s attempt to imitate Byzantium, and Byzantium’s attempt to imitate the empires of the pre-muslim world: rule of ignorant illiterate people by superstition, instead of the western model of patriarchal, continuous domestication of man from slave, to freeman, to citizen, to senate. The church was at a level of corruption similar to that of late french monarchy, and what we see in present Washington. There is little difference today between Washington DC, Versailles, The church in France, and the church in Italy (where it did succeed in rule somewhat). My read of the inquisition is a protestant propaganda campaign, and a more modern atheist campaign. In effect the church tried for many centuries to rule Europe as it did Byzantium and it failed. It failed and the many sovereign states succeeded. Because a monopoly calcifies and feeds corruption and a market competes and defeats corruption.